Month: May 2022
The United States Has Committed Numerous Acts of War Against Russia
By James A. Nollet
The United States has committed numerous Acts of War against Russia this year. This is not a value judgment. I make no claim here about whether the United States has acted wisely, or has acted with justification. I simply note it. And the world may now be tumbling into an interlocking cycle of escalation beyond control and foreseeable consequences, just as it did in 1914.
That the United States has committed Acts of War in no way justifies Russia’s actions; neither is it to say therefore that World War III and nuclear war have become inevitable, though Russian state media are openly speculating about the real risk of these. Countries often commit Acts of War against other countries, and no war breaks out when the offended party chooses for whatever reason not to respond. But they can respond, and that is the point here.
Iran committed an Act of War when it seized the 52 embassy hostages during Jimmy Carter’s presidency. This was an especially grievous and barbaric Act of War, because embassy officials are supposed to be sacrosanct. Even Nazi Germany and the USSR understood and respected that in 1941 when Germany attacked the USSR; despite the attack and the state of war, both sides dutifully and peacefully exchanged their respective embassy staffs. In this sense, Iran was even more barbaric than those two, and the United States would have been within its rights to seek a Declaration of War, though chose not to.
The United States committed an Act of War against Mexico with Operation Fast & Furious. The United States sent weapons to drug cartels who have established quasi-independent narco sub-states inside Mexico, in rebellion against the central government in Mexico City. Mexico would have been within its rights to declare war on the United States for this breach of its sovereignty, though it chose not to.
The American Acts of War against Russia come in two flavors: 1) economic sanctions, and 2) transfer of weapons and intelligence to a belligerent with whom Russia is at war.
The history of the lead-up to World War II shows both of these at work.
Economic Acts of War
Japan attacked the United States in 1941 despite the fact that America had never fired a shot at Japan, had never invaded any Japanese-held territory, and had never armed anybody Japan was fighting.
Japan attacked the United States purely for economic reasons. It attacked in response to American economic sanctions against Japan, which in turn were in response to Japan’s ongoing war in China. America had embargoed exports of oil, steel, and rubber to Japan, all vital war materials. To assure its continued access to these things, Japan felt it was forced to attack Southeast Asia and various islands in the Indo-Pacific Oceans. Knowing that this would draw the United States into war, Japan decided on pre-emptive attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippine Islands, and so began America’s participation in World War II.
Japan regard economic sanctions as Acts of War, and acted accordingly.
In the Atlantic Ocean, the United States committed numerous overt Acts of War against Nazi Germany, in violation of its own and Germany’s neutrality.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler asked his Reichstag for a Declaration of War against the United States. Below are some of the purported violations of German neutrality committed by the United States which Hitler cited in his speech:
- Lifting of the Neutrality Act enabling shipment of American weapons to nations at war with Germany;
- Advising France on June 15, 1940 that the United States was willing to send weapons to France if France would agree not to lay down its own weapons against Germany;
- Lend-Lease;
- The shipment of 50 destroyers to England in exchange for basing rights in several English bases in the Western Hemisphere; later 20 PT boats were turned over to England;
- The forced scuttling of several German merchant ships;
- Impounding of German ships and nationals in American harbors;
- The occupation of Greenland and Iceland, which were sovereign Danish territories;
- On June 9 1941, September 29 and October 7 the US Navy depth-charged a German U-Boot off Greenland. A U-Boot torpedoed the USN destroyer Reuben James;
- On November 6 the US Navy seized the German freighter Odenwald on the high seas and interned it and its crew inside the United States
All of these things the United States did against Germany – yet Adolf Hitler chose not to respond until the time of his own choosing.
In the current war, it is well-known that the United States and NATO have furnished Ukraine with billions of dollars’ worth of lethal weapons. In addition there are credible reports like this one which state that US intelligence has been able to track Russian generals who’ve been forced to travel to the front lines to direct the sagging fortunes of their units, and has given this intelligence to Ukrainian forces, which have killed them. And the May 6 edition of The New York Post reports that US intelligence enabled Ukraine to sink the Russian Black Sea flagship Moskva.
In the law, someone who assists an assassin is regarded as guilty as the assassin himself. Were Russia to choose to do so, it could definitely regard these and many other acts as so many Acts of War, and issue a formal Declaration of War.
Currently, Russian state media is openly speculating about the real possibility of nuclear war. The Daily Mail reported on April 28:
Margarita Simonyan, editor of state broadcaster RT and one of the Kremlin’s highest-profile mouthpieces, declared on TV last night that the idea of Putin pressing the red button is ‘more probable’ than the idea that he will allow Russia to lose the war.
Two days before that, Fortune quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:
The risk of nuclear war between Russia and the West is now “considerable,” according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
There is an old English saying, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Given that the United States has already committed Acts of War with no direct response from Russia, should not the United States continue doing more of the same – for example, extend a no-fly zone over Ukraine? After all, is not the goal a Ukrainian victory? And as long as Russia’s own borders aren’t violated, would Russia respond?
I don’t know. I think nobody in the West, and maybe not even Putin himself, really knows.
Actually, the war has already been brought inside Russia. There have been numerous, massive explosions in Russian border cities like Belgorod and Kursk. And if Chechens could explode terrorist bombs inside Moskva and derail the Moskva – St. Petersburg express train, surely Ukraine could too.
Ed Ames sang what arguably could be the greatest song of the 20th century, Who Will Answer? He asked,
And if a secret button’s pressed
Because one man’s been outguessed,
Who will answer?
Soros, Gates, Democrats linked to letter attacking Musk’s Twitter acquisition
Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion, a power struggle has been raging over the future endangered narratives of the “elites”. The EU and other globalist organizations have threatened Musk with sanctions if he made the platform too open.
Musk is not short of investors however, as the Saudis are also on board and want to contribute 1,9 billion US dollars. Meanwhile, Musk is working on new business models: Fees could be incurred for special tweets in the future.
Musk himself remains a dazzling personality who likes to provoke, but then withdraws again. Musk has called the purchase of Twitter a “watershed moment for civilization“. The platform is currently flooded with expressions of wokeness. Musk intends to allow more freedom of expression, but leftists have been outraged at his suggestions.
An example of his carefree, sometimes obnoxious, but always provoking humor was when he wrote: “Next I’ll buy Coca Cola to put the cocaine back in”.
Business model with tweets
But such bon mots and social media escapades also hide his business acumen. His Twitter purchase was backed by super-rich investor platforms and banks, not without reason. According to reports from insiders, Musk assured them of cost efficiency and new revenue ideas. He sees potential savings of several million in executive salaries. But you can also market certain tweets that go viral or have important content by charging a fee to third-party websites who want to quote or embed such tweets (from influential people). Musk also confirmed this in a tweet.
Because the platform has promised high returns, the Saudis are now also on board. They initially rejected Musk ‘s purchase of Twitter, but Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud tweeted to Musk: “Great to be in touch with you my new friend”. He believes Musk will be an excellent Twitter chief to boost and maximize the platform’s potential. Prince Alwaleed announced that he would invest a $1,9 billion stake and was looking forward to the “interesting journey”.
The prince is the chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), a Riyadh-based conglomerate that first bought shares in Twitter in 2011. KHD also has large stakes in other companies, such as Uber, Lyft, Citigroup, and the Four Seasons hotel chain.
Soros and his minions are alarmed by these developments
Musk’s announcement that he would bring less censorship and more freedom of expression to the platform doesn’t sit well with the global elite. In a letter to major brands such as Apple, Best Buy and HBO, a group of NGOs in the US called for their advertising budgets on Twitter to be linked to the existing guidelines for monitoring “hate speech” and “fake news”.
The British Daily Mail reported that Democratic Party donors and operatives George Soros, Bill Clinton, Obama officials and European governments were behind the NGOs and their letter calling for such an advertising boycott. A group of 26 activist organizations and NGOs signed a letter to warn large companies against the world’s richest man. They wrote: “Twitter risks becoming a cesspool of misinformation, with your brand attached.”
Vaccination pope and Windows founder Bill Gates also considered it appropriate to warn corporations against his billionaire colleague Musk. Restoring freedom of expression is apparently not something that Gates would like to see at all.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gates warned that Musk could “increase the spread of misinformation” in the future if he failed to adequately control comments on the social media platform. “He could actually make it worse,” Gates said. One should “never underestimate Elon”.
Then he became more precise: “What is his goal? When he speaks of ‘openness’, what does he think of something that says vaccines kill people or Bill Gates persecutes people? Is that one of the things he thinks should be spread? So it’s not entirely clear what he’s going to do.”
Gates specifically criticized governments and companies that had so far failed to completely “suppress” all those “false” comments in connection with the Covid-19 “pandemic” on social media. “If you don’t have trusted leaders to speak out on vaccines, it’s pretty hard for platforms to work against,” he said. “So I think we have a leadership issue and a platform issue.”
Why is Gates so worried?
The globalist recently unveiled GERM, a medical agency for “disease experts” who will work with the World Health Organization to “prevent pandemics”.
GERM, the Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization team will be focused on governments and pharmaceutical companies working together to “fuse factories all over the world to get unprecedented scale of diagnostics and vaccines very quickly,” Gates explained, ignoring the terrible economic fall-out and ineffectiveness of Covid jabs that have failed to stop transmission or prevent illness. Instead the shots are now associated with some serious side-effects.
“And we’ll have policy experts making sure that every country has the right approach,” Gates said. “This team would keep their skills fresh, helping get rid of polio, get rid of malaria, get rid of measles and other infectious diseases,” he added. Sadly, the polio outbreak in India is in fact blamed on Gates’ polio vaccines.
European MP blasts Gates-controlled WHO
Christine Anderson has meanwhile warned that the World Health Organization (WHO), now largely funded by Gates, was attempting to “seize governmental power” by means of a so-called pandemic treaty. “A democratically non-legitimized body, into which the richest of the super-rich buy their way through donations, is to decide in the future whether a pandemic situation exists, in order to then directly take over governmental power.” According to Anderson, this treaty was a new clandestine attack by the “false elites on our freedom and self-determination”.
An intergovernmental task force is currently working on modalities for the revision of the treaties between the WHO and the member states, but in fact, the central treaty assures that the WHO is being given de facto governing power over its member states in the event of a pandemic, without involvement or consultation with national governments or national parliaments.
Perhaps Gates would not like to see an open discussion on this power grab on social media. In response, Musk tweeted: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” suggesting that elite groups associated with the Democratic party were operating in the dark, and do not welcome scrutiny.
Biden responds with the creation of the DGB
When Musk reached an agreement with Twitter last week to buy the company, as well as set himself the goal of restoring freedom of expression on the platform, he evidently sparked real fears among the politically correct that Twitter would stop censoring what the mainstream calls “misinformation.” President Joe Biden’s administration announced plans to create a Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) just two days after Twitter directors accepted Musk’s offer.
Musk himself, meanwhile, maintains that “free speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy.” The Wall Street Journal interview came a day after Gates told NBC News that maybe there should be laws “that strike a better balance between free speech and conspiracy theories that confuse people”.
🚨 Priti Patel FINALLY Starts Deportation Of Illegal Migrants 👏
Queen Bans Harry, Meghan Markle, and Andrew from Appearing in Palace Balcony for Platinum Jubilee Celebration
Do ethnic Germans have the right to defend their majority status?
On March 8, a top German court in Cologne ruled that the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party could be labeled a “suspected threat” to Germany’s constitution, known as the Basic Law. The verdict is arguably one of the most important court decisions in modern German history, effectively marking a major turning point in the country’s democracy. With the decision, the court effectively “canceled” an entire political party with thousands of members and millions of votes from the political map, with the party burdened with near pariah status due to the enormous pressure it faces from the German state.
The direct political consequences of the verdict cannot be understated. In short, it paves the way for every member and politician in the party to be actively surveilled by the German state. It will also permit law enforcement to use informants throughout the party. Germany’s powerful domestic intelligence agency, the Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), will have nearly unlimited power to surveil and monitor the private life of nearly anyone who chooses to associate with the party, regardless of whether that person has been accused of any crime.
As Remix News previously reported, one of the key justifications offered for this watershed moment in Germany’s democracy was the judges’ claim that there were signs the AfD sought to reduce non-German ethnic groups in Germany, and that the party operated under the paradigm of the “German people” as an ethnic concept. The court argued that advocating for the ethnic German people is in clear opposition to Germany’s Basic Law.
“The German people are central to our Basic Law”
Interestingly enough, in an interview with the Junge Freiheit news outlet, the vice-chairman of the AfD party in Hamburg, Alexander Wolf, did not immediately dispute the court’s ruling that the AfD operated under such an ethnic principle (although certainly other high-ranking members of the party would refute such a claim entirely). Instead, Wolf said that the ethnic concept of the German people is actually protected in the Basic Law.
“The German people are central to our Basic Law; the ‘German people’ gave themselves this basic law. This concept is something different than the ‘population within the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany,’” he said.
“Article 116 of the Basic Law expressly speaks of German ethnicity in addition to nationality. And for our citizenship law, [ethnic] descent was central until the year 2000.”
Wolf is referring to Article 116 (1 and 2), which states, “Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.”
The second clause states that “Former German citizens who, between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds and their descendants shall, on application, have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.”
The law refers back to the end of World War II, when ethnic Germans were expelled from countries across Europe, forcing them to leave or be killed in many cases following reprisals. Article 116 gave ethnic Germans fleeing into Germany’s postwar territory automatic citizenship, with a specific mention to the “racial” nature of these reprisals.
As to Wolf’s assertion that [ethnic] descent was central to the German system until 2000, there is some basis for that claim. For decades following World War II, Germany continued to operate under a system that was greatly biased towards Germans of ethnic descent, particularly in favor of men of German ethnic descent, at least when it came to the issue of citizenship.
For example, children born in wedlock between Jan. 1, 1914 and Dec. 31, 1974, acquired German citizenship only if the father was a German citizen at the time of their birth. Even for German women who had a child born into wedlock during the same time period, if the father was not a citizen, the child would receive citizenship only if that child would become stateless without German citizenship. After 1974, children born into wedlock where at least one parent was a German citizen became German citizens automatically.
In 2000, the German Citizenship Law did away with all of this. The law effectively removed the “blood” aspect of German citizenship, and determined that two foreign parents born on German soil could have their child eligible for German citizenship as long as one parent has resided in Germany for at least eight years. Germany’s new left-wing government looks to further relax that law and make other reforms to speed up the naturalization process for new immigrants.
Following World War II, most German citizens were ethnic Germans, and Germany remained more or less an ethnically homogeneous state, with the exception of its Turkish guest worker population, if not explicitly, at least implicitly. In this regard, Germany was not so different from many European nations at the time.
The AfD’s Wolf contends that the there is nothing actually wrong with the Basic Law, and that it is only in the last few years that a politicized court has slowly been transforming the meaning of Germany’s constitution to disregard any concept of ethnicity. Now, Germany’s progressive judges are actually going so far as to claim anyone who says otherwise is a threat to that very constitution, which is the situation AfD currently finds itself in.
“The problem is that the political class has been turning this understanding of the Basic Law upside down for years, and that the courts, the politicized Federal Constitutional Court and other courts, are following suit. The OVG Berlin-Brandenburg declared in the middle of last year that maintaining differences between peoples violates Article 1 of the Basic Law of human dignity. This is obviously absurd, even unconstitutional — and at the same time it is applied by the courts as applicable law,” he said.
“We must work to ensure that this misinterpretation of the Basic Law is corrected,” he added.
Can ethnic Europeans organize politically?
Whether Wolf will change the thinking of a German political establishment increasingly dedicated to the idea of a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation, remains to be seen, but the whole debate raises an important question: can ethnic Germans lobby to maintain their majority status in their own country, particularly in the form of a political party?
It is an important question. While many ethnic Germans reject the idea that they are even a group that needs any representation, most ethnic groups in the world view political representation as a key element of not only furthering their goals, security and interests on an individual level, but also as a people. Germany’s historical guilt over World War II has made the country’s majority especially uncomfortable expressing any concerns over their demographic future, yet, there are signs that despite Germany’s welcoming image, many Germans remain opposed to mass immigration from non-EU countries and a sizeable oppose immigration even from other EU countries.
Statistics show that at least one out of every eight Germans is a foreigner, and the country’s foreign population increases every year, while the share of ethnic Germans decreases in turn. At the same time, the current left-wing government appears set to dramatically accelerate mass immigration in the coming years.
Yet, Germany’s court system is effectively asserting that the largest party opposed to mass immigration, the AfD, is not permitted to lobby and fight for their constituents when it comes to this specific concern. They are now a “threat to democracy,”. A move to squash the AfD by the courts — which have always lacked a certain element of democratic legitimacy — may be an attempt to preemptively snuff out democratic opposition to the German left’s increasingly aggressive immigration agenda.
Everyone else is doing it
Within Germany, minority ethnic blocs already exist and operate to maximize their interests. For example, the largest of these groups, Turkish-Germans, strategize on which parties to vote for, with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) particularly “unelectable because of its policy on Islam,” according to a report from Deutsche Welle. The report also details how Turks are disappointed there are not more explicitly “pro-Turkey” parties in Germany, but work to identify which parties will benefit Turkey and Turks the most.
Not all Turks vote along with the objectives of Turkish nationalism, but this ethnic group does vote almost entirely for pro-migrant parties, and they have every motive for doing so. So far, given their smaller size relative to the German population, they have been unable to materialize Turkish nationalist goals into a standalone political party — despite trying on a number of occasions. Even with Germany’s Muslim population only set to grow over the coming years, the dream of an explicitly pro-Islam, pro-Turkey party is unlikely to come to fruition due to the high thresholds parties have to enter government, but the immigrant and foreigner voting bloc will undoubtedly gain more power.
German Turks also show other signs that they remain deeply invested in Turkey, with voting patterns revealing a worrying trend for progressive Germany. Nearly half of Germany’s Turks are still allowed to vote in Turkey, and they vote overwhelmingly for the country’s Islamic strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Erdoğan has long been active in Germany’s Turkish community, where he regularly campaigns for their votes and addresses them in speeches.
“From here I say to my citizens, I say to my brothers and sisters in Europe… Educate your children at better schools, make sure your family live in better areas, drive in the best cars, live in the best houses,” said Erdoğan in 2017.
“Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.”
Erdoğan’s rhetoric may be crude, but for him there is a simple logic to more Turkish immigrants and children in Germany and Europe. In a democracy, demographics matter, and as the case of France shows — where 85 percent of Muslims voted in favor of Emmanuel Macron in order to keep the immigration restrictionist Marine Le Pen out of office — numbers matter. Whether Germans want to believe it or not, ethnic groups and foreign nations are playing a game that many Germans are totally unaware of, and while ethnic Germans may reject the idea of lobbying for their interests as racist, that does not necessarily mean other groups will have the same compunctions. In fact, most people across the world take a pragmatic approach to the issue of demographics, and Turkey’s government is no exception. Turkey, for example, sees the power of its country’s ethnic bloc as a positive with the potential to influence elections in Germany, Turkey’s foreign policy goals, and even Turkey’s domestic elections. Erdoğan, knowing that Turks vote for his nationalist and even racialist objectives, actively desires that more Turks migrate to Germany, that they have more children, and eventually displace or at least offset the power of other ethnic groups, including Germans, which have often been hostile to his government.
Germany is not the only country where this type of ethnic lobbying occurs. In countries across the West, migrants and foreigners are increasingly voting for pro-migration parties that represent their interests. In the Netherlands, for example, they have actually formed their own explicitly pro-migrant, pro-Islam party.
However, in most Western European countries, migrants do not need such parties, and already see their interests as being well-represented by a range of left-wing parties, which are nearly universally pro-migrant, with some notable exceptions. For migrants in Germany looking to bring their family members into the country, which is undoubtedly an interest of many ethnic blocs, they can choose from the Green Party, and the Social Democrats (SPD), Die Linke, and even the Free Democrat Party (FDP). This illustrates the increasingly one-way street on the issue of migration in the West, in which minorities, foreigners and migrants are allowed a nearly unlimited capacity to lobby for their interests and to actively increase their share of the population, while natives of Western countries are consistently excluded from this process, and in the case of Germany, now simply labeled a “threat to democracy.”
When majorities become minorities
Germany, along with the rest of Western Europe, is embarking on an unprecedented venture, in which the majority ethnic groups willingly become the minority through mass immigration. Most such events in history occurred through conquest, and many of them feature unfortunate endings for those who were conquered. There are no guarantees of ethnic Germans becoming a minority, but if current trends hold, there is little to stop this event from occurring.
This demographic transformation is a real worry of a large segment of Europe’s population. France, in particular, has taken the question of immigration to heart, with talk of the Great Replacement dominating the political discourse around April’s national election, including in the media and on the campaign trail. The fact that Le Pen scored nearly 42 percent of the vote shows how fractured that country’s political landscape has become.
The issue of demographic replacement is not going away either, and this is because there is no amount of sugarcoating that can hide the reality that Europeans are being replaced by non-Europeans. It is, in fact, a quantifiable phenomenon, and demographic data, whether it is from Norway or France, confirms it is taking place. Yet, conservative or even left-wing parties that discuss, debate or reject this trend may increasingly fall afoul of hate speech laws, court actions, and even physical threats.
If ethnic Germans or French become a minority, will a multicultural utopia follow? If history is any guide, it is unlikely. Vast cultural differences remain between Europeans and other non-European ethnic groups related to women’s rights, LGBT rights, and secular notions, just to name a few. One of the fastest growing populations in Europe hails from the Middle East, an area of the world where minorities are treated particularly poorly. However, the Middle East is no exception either when it comes to dominating and sometimes abusing its minority populations. Whether it’s the Han Chinese slowly squeezing out the Uyghurs and Tibetans, the Hutus killing the Tutsis in Africa, or the Muslim Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, both history and the modern era have consistently shown that being a minority has always been a dangerous proposition, which is why so often different peoples have historically fought to avoid this particular fate.
Even in Europe itself, areas where different ethnicities and religions have lived — even in peaceful coexistence for centuries — have erupted in bloodshed under the right conditions. The Balkan countries are just one recent example, but there are countless others.
Much of Germany’s welcoming stance also undoubtedly depends on political and economic stability. In this respect, Germany stands out. French society, while still boasting a remarkably high standard of living, is facing graver problems. Its industry is less competitive, the share of struggling working poor is greater, and inequality is higher. In such an environment, it is no surprise that ethnic and racial tensions are more pronounced. This tension broadly manifests itself throughout French society, including in ethnic ghettos that exist on a far smaller scale in Germany.
However, if German society becomes less comfortable or an internal or external shock occurs, such as a major food crisis, which many consider an unthinkable scenario, Germans could quickly turn on the liberal consensus. This same sort of radical rethinking of society occurred after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with Germany’s once pacifist-leaning public suddenly gearing up for a war, shipping heavy weapons east, and planning to invest up to €100 billion in its military. Of course, this dramatic change in thinking was greatly guided by the media, and that same media is unlikely to change its consensus attitude on the issue of immigration regardless of what occurs internationally or domestically. Yet, the threat is still there for every multicultural society: how do the different cultures and peoples react to one another should the “good times” come to an end and competition for resources increases?
At the same time, historical grudges against White Europeans could become more manifest in a political environment where ethnic Europeans head towards minority status, as is the case involving Whites in America. Despite optimism in a diverse future, a potential shift in political power could be unfavorable to Whites in the form of discrimination, reparations, and wealth and property taxes based on race, all which sound alarmist, but all which are current proposals growing in popularity in the U.S. and could easily be transferred to Europe in the future.
The classic argument is that White people do not need political representation, as they already represent the current ruling power. However, this power is in many ways illusory specifically because so many of the Whites in power in the West adhere to an anti-White ideology, and even those Whites who find this anti-White trend repugnant, many are deathly afraid of promoting anything that even comes close to the idea that their own group has its own interests. The power that Whites think they hold in the West also looks increasingly tenuous over the long-term, and doubly so in countries like the United States, where anti-White rhetoric and even legislation seems to be promoted more freely every year in tandem with White people’s approaching minority status.
The U.S. is especially worth examining for Germans and Europeans of all nations, for what is happening there seems to presage what will happen in Europe. For all the talk of White privilege, Whites in the U.S. are dying earlier, facing social deterioration, and also earn less than a range of other minority groups. Nevertheless, Whites are the only ethnic or racial group in the U.S. not permitted to explicitly lobby for their own interests. In Congress, for example, Black and Hispanic caucuses exist while a White caucus would be unheard of. There are explicitly Black magazines, a Black Entertainment Television (BET) channel, and a Black Lives Matter movement, while any such attempts for Whites to organize in a similar manner would be treated as domestic extremism. Even Donald Trump, consistently labeled a White supremacist, went out of his way to never openly mention White people as a group, instead referring constantly to Black and Hispanics, all in an effort to gain their votes based around their clear interests, whether it was justice reform or education. Trump’s Platinum Plan outlined his “promise to Black America over four years.” Making any promises targeted to “White America” — which, as noted, is a demographic group also facing serious headwinds — would have made national headlines and virtually disqualified Trump despite Whites making up the vast majority of his supporters.
The U.S. is no exception, and statistics from Great Britain suggest a worrying picture there as well, with Whites dying earlier than any other ethnic group while at the same time, poor White males have the lowest educational achievement of any ethnic group in that class of people.
In Germany, White people are still the dominant group, and within this group, ethnic Germans are still the majority. Yet, falling birthrates and mass immigration will lead eventually to the inevitable, and with that, ethnic Germans will likely see the same loss of political power as Whites as a group have seen in the United States. While the AfD has effectively lost its ability to operate as a normal party or promote the interests of the majority ethnic group in the country, there is no reason to believe that the left-wing parties of Germany will stop working to promote the interests of other ethnic groups, offer foreigners more benefits, and even work towards making Germany’s main ethnic group a minority two to three generations.
The German political and judicial establishment no longer operates based on the principle of interests, but instead ardently follows the quasi-religious ideologies of human rights, multiculturalism, and liberal democracy, with these concepts often tailored to exclude anything that reeks of “Whiteness,” “Christianity,” or “cisgender males” — just to name a few concepts the liberal establishment increasingly refuses to tolerate. That is why the AfD cannot be allowed to represent the interests of what has traditionally constituted the “German people” for centuries: ethnic Germans. Instead, Germany, along with the rest of the West, appears fervently determined to embark on an experiment that very well may end in tragedy.
Abortion, Blair’s Legacy 25 yrs on & Will Canada’s Woke Gov’t Ban Dying Soldiers Access to Priests?
Is the left agitating for war with Russia so it can cement domestic tyranny?
By Selwyn Duke
It has been odd and alarming watching the powers-that-be relentlessly escalate the proxy war our government is waging against Russia. It’s not just that we’re sending billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, are calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal and issuing other fightin’ words, are training Ukrainian troops, and are trying to effect Moscow’s economic destruction. It’s also that, senior American officials have now revealed, via intelligence aid, the U.S. has helped to:
- kill Moscow’s generals,
- down a plane carrying Russian soldiers, and
- sink one of Putin’s warships.
The kicker: By revealing this publicly — perhaps as strikingly inappropriate as leaking a Supreme Court draft opinion — Biden administration officials appear to be bragging about these “exploits” and rubbing the Russians’ noses in them. If you wanted to provoke a hot war, this is exactly how you’d do it.
But why would our officials seek conflict with the nation boasting the world’s largest stockpile of nukes (6,000) in the name of thwarting aggression that, as I explained here and here, globalist policy invited and is none of our affair? It all has a Dr. Strangelove–esque quality about it.
But there may be a method to this madness. And, no, a mere desire to enrich weapons-manufacturer political donors doesn’t explain it. There is one motivation that would, however: a serious conflict would provide the left an opportunity to seize complete domestic control, to cement its power — perhaps permanently.
For certain is that locking horns with Russia would be used to further curtail civil liberties.
We know this because major conflicts always are thus used. Abraham Lincoln arrested opposition journalists and publishers during the War between the States. WWI saw the passage of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, the latter of which absolutely infringed upon freedom of speech. And Franklin Roosevelt is notorious for having interned U.S. citizens of Japanese and also of German descent and for persecuting some Italian-heritage Americans.
Civil rights’ trampling would surely be worse under a major-war scenario today. Not only are we much farther down the rabbit hole of moral nihilism and wanton constitutional trespass, but Americans who even question our Ukraine policy are already labeled “stooges of Putin.” Moreover, Democrats have already made crystal-clear what they want: complete power — by any means necessary.
This desire has manifested itself in politicians such as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) calling for violence against political opponents and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) threatening SCOTUS justices who dare vote contrary to the left’s agenda.
Heeding such calls, the Democrats’ de facto storm troopers have effected hundreds of violent riots, more than 600 in 2020 alone. One Democrat operative, Scott Foval, was caught on hidden video in 2016 talking about inciting violence at Trump rallies and unabashedly said, “We’re starting anarchy here.”
This violence is again now being ratcheted up, just in time for the midterms, with news that the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade opinion could be overturned. This is attended by threats made against the “conservative” SCOTUS justices and the doxxing of them, with activists encouraging protests at their homes.
All the while that this violence is tacitly approved by Democrat leaders — and it is — conservatives are hung out to dry if they step even one inch out of line, as the January 6 martyrs’ plight proves. In contrast, 2020’s CHAZ, or Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, takeover of part of Seattle was by definition an insurrection but was sloughed off. Why, its “warlord” leader, Raz Simone, was apparently never even charged with a crime.
This, not to mention that Nancy Pelosi called the longest ever occupation of an American government building — leftists’ 2011 takeover of the Wisconsin Capitol — an “impressive show of democracy in action.” This statement was as true as claiming that the stolen (and it was) 2020 presidential contest was “the most secure election in U.S. history.”
Get the picture?
It’s not pretty, and it adds up to this: a major war under Biden’s handlers’ watch would become a pretext for the greatest Big Brother seizure of control in U.S. history. The question is, however, would the radicals in charge be crazy enough, or desperate enough, to risk nuclear war for power’s sake?
Note two matters when assessing this. First, being completely un-American and unpalatable, the Democrats have nothing to run on in the midterms aside from the just ginned up Roe v. Wade abortion controversy. Second, and as I often warn, these demagogues aren’t normal. They’re power-mongers.
Just as people can lust after food, sex, or money — motivations everyone can understand — so can they exhibit that rarer phenomenon: lust for power. And just as a man may endanger his marriage and career to indulge his prurient desires, megalomaniacs may assume great risk to satisfy their dark cravings.
For certain is that cementing total power requires something Marxist revolutionaries would call “crisis,” the third stage of communist subversion. The first, “demoralization,” is the undermining of the nation’s moral foundation; Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov said this was “more than complete” in the mid-’80s already. The second, “destabilization,” is what we’ve seen with the violence, the toppling of statues, and the intensified attacks on our institutions over the last many years. Now, all we need is a crisis and what it facilitates: revolution — a final seizure of power.
A major war (along with food shortages) could certainly fit the bill. And while this may appear a crazy theory, the people in charge may just be crazy enough for it to be true.
Germany: Iraqi man vandalises bakery shop because he was not served before the shop opened
When the main hall at Regensburg’s main railway station opened, a 35-year-old Iraqi man appeared in a bakery shop. At that time, the shop assistants were just putting the baked goods on the shelves. When asked, they explained to the man that the sale did not start until 5 am, according to the report of the Federal Police.
The Iraqi did not like the fact that he was not served. He insulted the shop assistants and knocked over a stack of pallets with baked goods. As a result, the goods could no longer be sold.
The employees of the bakery called the Regensburg federal police station for help. The arriving officers calmed down the situation and found the ID of a 42-year-old German woman when they searched the 35-year-old.
According to his own information, the man had found the identity card in the city area. The police then seized the document. The rampage caused damage to property amounting to 156 euros. The federal police in Regensburg are now investigating for damage to property, according to the police report. Since the identity of the Iraqi could be established beyond doubt, he was allowed to go on his way again after the police measures were completed.
Documentary on the rigging of 2020 US election
American political commentator Dinesh D’Souza has produced a documentary about how the 2020 US presidential election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden. Since 2 May 2022, his film has been screened in 250 theaters.